Here in the Minneapolis/St Paul metro, as long as you're going to either downtown and, honesty, downtown Minneapolis more-so that StP, it's faster to take the bus. However, pretty much anywhere else, it's way slower.

That said, my family of 4 only has one car and I take mass transit or carpool w/others. I see absolutely no reason why those working downtown should go there in any other way. It's faster, cheaper, allows you to sleep/read/etc, and it's better for the environment.

I have an iPhone5S w/VZW and find their tools to be 100% spot on. Between my wife and I, we end up right at our 4GB limit each month and sometimes we're in airplane mode + wifi for a day or more in order to make it under the wire. I feel VZW's own tools are just fine for monitoring my bandwidth, at least at this point in time.

Many of you will ask why we just don't add more to our plan. Well, that's simple: I don't believe that carriers should be able to charge what they do for the limited amount of bandwidth they provide; data is the new SMS (something I also refused to pay for when I was on AT&T and instead forced the carrier to block all incoming SMS to my phone and I used Google Voice + iMessage to avoid paying for it).

The Public Sector does a lot of things well, but it is not great at many others and thus private/public partnerships are an absolute requirement for government to run effectively. If the Public Sector were really out to avoid all outsourcing, it would be detrimental to the core competencies of its staff.

So, if we're to take a step back and say that a lot of government's utilize SIRE or GovDelivery to host, manage, and deliver their documents to the public, are you instead suggesting that the Public Sector bring these functions in-house and build infrastructure and management solutions to do this themselves?

You believe that web/email hosting solutions should not go to IaaS organizations and instead should be handled by high-cost internal IT groups which may not be as inexpensive or effective as those in the Private Sector?

I think your view is incredibly short-sighted for many of the functions of the Public Sector. While the Public Sector *must* do a better job managing the Private, that is besides the point; they simply cannot do what you claim they should, especially while being mindful and reacting quickly to their citizens.

No, it's why do local government's loathe their citizens? After all, they're the ones who are, almost always, signing exclusive contracts with these companies to provide a local monopoly of services while forcing unnecessary additional costs (local government access via cable TV) and franchise fees to fund them.

13.03 ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA.Subdivision 1.Public data. All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification pursuant to section 13.06, or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential. The responsible authority in every government entity shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Photographic, photostatic, microphotographic, or microfilmed records shall be considered as accessible for convenient use regardless of the size of such records.

I have used this exact quoted statute many-a-time to force local government agencies in Minnesota to not only provide me information, which they were usually willing to do, but for free or very low cost.

I made a request once to a public transit agency who told me it would be several hundred dollars to do. I told them if they had followed the statute to make the data readily accessible by the public, it wouldn't require the work they were trying to charge me to do. Their legal counsel informed them I was indeed correct and I got it for the cost of the media.

Maybe there is a similar statute in this case which drove the decision?

Really? Do you know how many talented developers who are completely and utterly 'dysfunctional' themselves and cause irrevocable damage to the team and its work output? It's not something I enjoy dealing with as much as helping people continue to grow and learn.

Depending on what need I'm trying to fill, I hire 90% for culture fit and 10% for technical ability. Most often, people can learn to improve their technical ability, especially b/c there is very rarely any single individual who can fill an open req 100%. That said, what I have found cannot be learned as well, is how to fit into an organization's culture.

Broad experience is great and I wholly support companies which are looking to add resources who possess such knowledge; however, broad experience can come with the price of not having enough targeted knowledge to bring deep-dive specifics to the mix.

The real question you should be asking is whether they can figure it out on their own if tasked with finding a solution to the problem. I guarantee you that most of those you have cast aside due to their lack of public-key cryptography knowledge would be able to do so while bringing you the specific knowledge you need straight out of their heads.

Honestly, if you interviewed me and I didn't know the answer to some mostly irrelevant question and told me that's why I didn't get the job, I would thank you for not hiring me to work with someone who doesn't know enough about being a hiring manager to do his job effectively.

I'm preaching to the 4-digit choir here, I know. Let me issue the disclaimer that I am not a teacher but a bunch of my friends are, and my job does depend on staying up to date.

I am not sure what my ability to remember the login information for an account I created in 1997 has anything to do w/the discussion; however, EVERYONE's job depends on them staying up-to-date, it's just that most people choose not to and fall behind.

Technology funding in school districts (in my area these are tax levies) is already insanely high; mostly because we're pushing for tablet devices in schools driven, behind the scenes, by extremely lucrative vendor deals.

Without adequate training, the related curricula are severely limited and thus the added benefits when compared to related cost are low, if at all positive.

Now, this research, as well as the districts, are rightly saying the teachers need more training in order to leverage the technology effectively; however, what really needs to be understood is just how much training is really necessary and whether the tech gap between teachers and their students can really be mitigated.

It is my unfounded opinion that it will never be mitigated enough as teachers are not usually well enough equipped at their own subject matter, let alone keeping up with the taxing knowledge demands of technology.

What we need to do is take a step back and ensure that these additional tax investments in technology are actually doing anything to further student development and because they aren't, think about what we can do to actually concentrate on doing that instead of buying the new and shiny and letting it, effectively, collect dust in the corner while levy after levy is passed to support it.

Clearly you have never been to the UCLA campus because, if you had, you would have known this isn't true in the least. You can walk all over that place.

The problem in LA is the culture. People believe they are to be seen in their automobiles and they buy or lease expensive cars and drive them ridiculously short distances for that sole reason (if there is another reason, please do share but nothing really makes sense).

I worked for a company based out of LA for 2.5 years and we were there often. One guy lived a 10 minute walk from the office but chose to drive each and every day. He didn't buy an M3 to have it sit in his garage, after all. Nope, it sat in the company's garage instead.

I work in marketing analytics and, specifically, in measuring the effectiveness of online marketing campaigns at a customer level. Straight up click tracking is dead and this will do nothing which is purports as organizations begin moving away from siloed measurement of IMP -> CLK within single channels at an aggregate level and instead go down to the very granular cross-channel customer-level attribution.

If you really want to avoid detection and behavior tracking, I highly suggest you entirely disable cookies entirely (yes, I realize this is not worth it at all), otherwise you will not have accomplished what you had hoped.